Armor structure is used to preclude an adversary from crossing a line and/or preventing access to a facility such as a building, or to a room within a building. An exemplary armor structure might be in the form of a load-bearing wall, an exterior door to a building, and/or an interior door to a room within a building. The invention herein was primarily motivated in creating armor structure in the form of an exterior door for providing access, and precluding undesired entry, to a building. However, the invention in its broadest aspects is in no way so limited.
Armor structures might be designed for resisting an attack from a number of possible breaching sources, for example a large-caliber breaching weapon (i.e., a platter charge or a flyer plate), as well as from a variety of other possible attacks such as mechanical and abrasive cutters, plasma torches, oxygen lances, line-shaped explosively-formed charges, and free-air blasts. A flyer plate attack is very severe, typically employing a large-caliber breaching weapon composed of a circular plate of mild steel driven and formed by hundreds of pounds of C4 explosive. It is intended to punch a human-sized hole through a door or wall in a single strike, and is primarily a challenge to the core of the door or wall armor structure. Incidental loads are also provided to the rest of the door or wall from free-air blast attack from the firing of the flyer plate. A free-air blast, in the absence of a flyer plate, typically consists of a sphere of C4 explosive detonated towards a wall or door. Of course, it is likely that other and greater severity attacks will be developed in the future.
Preferred designs for an armor structure, whether a wall, door or other construction, ideally will absorb and disperse incident energy, perhaps using controlled and progressive deformations of the armor structure to increase the event duration and decrease peak loads transmitted to adjacent portions of a structure. The deformations may render a door or other armor structure inoperable after an attack, which is likely still acceptable if entry by an adversary is ultimately prevented.
While the invention was motivated in addressing the above identified issues, it is in no way so limited. The invention is only limited by the accompanying claims as literally worded, without interpretative or other limiting reference to the specification, and in accordance with the doctrine of equivalents.